Oct 10
29
The tyranny of human rights evidenced with another Ontario decision
Do you want more proof that Canada’s – and particularly Ontario’s – human rights industry is a realm of tyranny, or arbitrary rule? A few weeks ago, a decision came down from the province’s human rights tribunal that they had the right to make the final decision on who can be the dean of a university’s law school. The case in question involves the university of Windsor. In this more recent decision, covered in the article below, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had decided that it’s jurisdiction does not extend to the editorial pages of newspaper. But if it believed this, why did Ontario Human Rights Commission Czar Barbara Hall express such strong opinions against Maclean’s magazine and its Mark Steyn content that put these agencies in the news across Canada for a couple of years?
What we are seeing here is the tyranny of arbitrary rule. It’s rule by men, not rule by law. The only sustainable model for rule by law is one based on God’s law. Today’s arbitrary rule is a grave threat to liberty and fundamental justice – and it is an expression of the ruthless humanist ideology. Humanists, being relativists, have no intellectual foundation for the rule of law, so they force us into the rule of man, which is arbitrary and tyrannical. Look out for more. If Dalton McGuinty wins the next Ontario election, you might want to buy your chains early so that you can paint them. If you’re going to have to wear chains, you might as well use them as a fashion statement.
The Belleville Intelligencer – October 28, 2010
Complaint dismissed against newspaper
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a complaint against the County Weekly News for an editorial that appeared in the paper in 2009. Alan Whiteley, a lawyer who lives in Picton, filed the complaint, arguing the contents of the editorial discriminated against an identifiable group – newly arrived “imports” to Prince Edward County.
Adjudicator David A. Wright decided the tribunal “has no jurisdiction to scrutinize the content of newspaper editorials.” The Ontario Human Rights Commission acted as an intervenor in the matter and in a hearing in Kingston in September argued the tribunal and the commission have no place in determining what should or should not appear in newspaper editorials.
In his decision, Wright cited the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Sec. 2(b) of the Charter which “guarantees freedom of expressions, including freedom of the press.” “Expression of editorial opinion is at the very core of that right,” said Wright.